AaronCapenBanner
Richard Brooks directed this seemingly forgotten satire that stars Sean Connery as successful TV newsman Patrick Hale, who is hot on the trail of a big news story involving stolen nuclear warheads hidden in suitcases and international terrorism, leading from the Pentagon to the White House, where President Lockwood(played by George Grizzard) and General Wombat(played by Robert Conrad) try desperately to keep a lid on things, while Hale suspects a cover-up, where it all ends atop the World Trade Center... Crazy satire seems like a combination of "Network" and "Dr. Strangelove", but falls well short of those classics. This may be prescient in some ways, but it little matters in misfired comedy. Interesting cast though!
flackjacket
First of all, several have said this was a dark comedy/political satire. Sorry I just don't see any humor at all in this movie. None whatsoever. I came across it when it was recently broadcast on TV. My first thought was, that it was a low budget made for TV movie from the 70's. Mainly because it had the same level of directing and editing as The Six Million Dollar Man.My second thought was, how did all these big name stars get roped into a such a low budget movie with such a bad script and poor directing. The President's war room set is a bunch of desks that look like they were purchased at Staples during a 10% off sale, with chrome phones from Spencer's Gifts. But even with a better set, the editing is so disoriented and choppy it would still be unwatchableSecondly, there's many claiming this movie was somehow prophetic. As if the writers somehow saw into the future. Well these reviewers are either too young to know or don't remember what was common knowledge the year this film was made. The best selling book, "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" was published in 1974, eight years before this film. Terrorist had been threatening to strike American and Israel since the late 60's. Hence the plot.So it's not like the writers magically divined what would happen in the future, they were going off things that were already common knowledge at the time. The operations of the CIA, the terrorist's threats, the back room operations of the Executive Branch aren't something that suddenly happened on 9/11. It was something everyone knew about years before this film was made.Overall, it's like watching a low-budget made for TV movie from the 70's. An overly long episode of "It takes A Thief" or "I Spy". There is no humor, dark or light, nor any satire. The directing, sets, editing and story line are so bad, that no amount of big name actors could pull it out of the toilet.
reiki650
The fact is the editing is what sunk this film, ultimately. I had always seen minor time gaps that bothered me, especially with Sean Connery in the lead. Leslie Neilson proves he can act without the Police Squad deadpan.That aside, I had to get this film off ebay on VHS to view it again. I'm glad to hear it finally hit DVD shelves. Except for a few bumps in the road, it's still time well spent.-----------------------SPOILER!!!---------------------------------I loved this film when I went to college in '88. Now it seems both a bit lame, but yet, very prophetic. Especially with war in the Middle East and a climax that takes place at the top of the World Trade Center!!!
Thorsten-Krings
This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one.
AD
